I review here four important, but perhaps not immediately apparent, themes from my Capitalism, Alone. The book contains many other, more topical, subjects that are likely to attract readers’ and reviewers’ attention much more than the somewhat abstract or philosophical issues briefly reviewed here.
I have always thought that ‘capitalism’ was a poor term, and not a parallel to ‘communism’.
In my view, an ‘ism’ can be thought of as having an ideological component: a belief system. (This is a simplification.) In this way, it is a close cousin of ‘ideology.’ An ideology has within it an implicit value system: there is a principle, or set of principles, around which society can be structured. This is the ‘idea’. The value system is that not only do ideologies contain principles for organizing society they also contain the notion that society *should* be organized in accordance with these principles. (Prescriptive).
Capitalism is not really an ideology of belief system. It is rather a description of an efficient way to organize production. It comes out of an understanding of human psychology and how incentives can be used to align interests of disparate groups. This is not much in the way of a ‘prescriptive’ system. So as you point out capitalistic economic structures can be found under disparate societies.
Communism was a value system as much a description of how society could be structured. Communists thought the world *should* be structured this way. And given that it’s tenets could be held in the kind of an individual, and written down in a book, it offered the simplifying, clarifying utility of religion. Perhaps this is why it served as an organizing principle for revolution. Could the prosaic concerns of how to structure a functioning market economy ever serve to inflame the passions necessary to fight a civil war? I don’t think so.
That communism is an ideology is the root of its failure. Any idea for organizing society that could b contained in a single book is doomed to failure. It can only reflect a bastardized and simplified image of complex reality.
Capitalism’s strength is its weakness. It describes how markets work and the relationship to human drives. But as you point out, there is a hollowness in trying to connect transcendent meaning to the success of products in a marketplace. Or to one’s own ability to maximize their economic value.
Those looking for transcendent meaning will need to look elsewhere.
I have always thought that ‘capitalism’ was a poor term, and not a parallel to ‘communism’.
In my view, an ‘ism’ can be thought of as having an ideological component: a belief system. (This is a simplification.) In this way, it is a close cousin of ‘ideology.’ An ideology has within it an implicit value system: there is a principle, or set of principles, around which society can be structured. This is the ‘idea’. The value system is that not only do ideologies contain principles for organizing society they also contain the notion that society *should* be organized in accordance with these principles. (Prescriptive).
Capitalism is not really an ideology of belief system. It is rather a description of an efficient way to organize production. It comes out of an understanding of human psychology and how incentives can be used to align interests of disparate groups. This is not much in the way of a ‘prescriptive’ system. So as you point out capitalistic economic structures can be found under disparate societies.
Communism was a value system as much a description of how society could be structured. Communists thought the world *should* be structured this way. And given that it’s tenets could be held in the kind of an individual, and written down in a book, it offered the simplifying, clarifying utility of religion. Perhaps this is why it served as an organizing principle for revolution. Could the prosaic concerns of how to structure a functioning market economy ever serve to inflame the passions necessary to fight a civil war? I don’t think so.
That communism is an ideology is the root of its failure. Any idea for organizing society that could b contained in a single book is doomed to failure. It can only reflect a bastardized and simplified image of complex reality.
Capitalism’s strength is its weakness. It describes how markets work and the relationship to human drives. But as you point out, there is a hollowness in trying to connect transcendent meaning to the success of products in a marketplace. Or to one’s own ability to maximize their economic value.
Those looking for transcendent meaning will need to look elsewhere.